Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ledesma v. CA
Ledesma v. CA
SYLLABUS
DECISION
GUTIERREZ, JR., J : p
"In view of all the foregoing, this Office believes and so holds and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
hereby directs that appellant Violeta M. Delmo, and for that matter all
other Club members or officers involved in this case, be not deprived of
any award, citation or honor from the school, if they are otherwise
entitled thereto." (Rollo, pp. 28-30)
On April 27, 1966, the petitioner received by mail the decision of the
Director and all the records of the case. On the same day, petitioner
received a telegram stating the following:
"AIRMAIL RECORDS DELMO CASE MISSENT THAT OFFICE"
The Director asked for the return only of the records but the petitioner
allegedly mistook the telegram as ordering him to also send the decision
back. On the same day, he returned by mail all the records plus the decision
of the Director to the Bureau of Public Schools.
The next day, the petitioner received another telegram from the
Director ordering him to furnish Delmo with a copy of the decision. The
petitioner, in turn, sent a night letter to the Director informing the latter that
he had sent the decision back and that he had not retained a copy thereof. Cdpr
The trial court awarded P20,000.00 to the estate of Violeta Delmo and
P10,000.00 to her parents for moral damages; P5,000.00 for nominal
damages to Violeta's estate; exemplary damages of P10,000.00 and
P2,000.00 attorney's fees.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Hence, this
petition.
The issues raised in this petition can be reduced to the sole question of
whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial
court's finding that petitioner is liable for damages under Article 27 of the
New Civil Code.
We find no reason why the findings of the trial and appellate courts
should be reversed. It cannot be disputed that Violeta Delmo went through a
painful ordeal which was brought about by the petitioner's neglect of duty
and callousness. Thus, moral damages are but proper. As we have affirmed
in the case of Prudenciado v. Alliance Transport System, Inc., 148 SCRA 440,
448):
"There is no argument that moral damages include physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of
defendant's wrongful act or omission." (People v. Baylon, 129 SCRA 62
(1984)).
"Fifth, defendant did not even extend the courtesy of meeting Mr.
Pacifico Delmo, father of Miss Delmo, who tried several times to see
defendant in his office thus Mr. Delmo suffered extreme
disappointment and humiliation.
xxx xxx xxx
"Defendant, being a public officer should have acted with
circumspection and due regard to the rights of Miss Delmo. Inasmuch
as he exceeded the scope of his authority by defiantly disobeying the
lawful directive of his superior, Director Bernardino, defendant is liable
for damages in his personal capacity. . . . ." (Rollo, pp. 57-58)
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.